Search This Blog

Atheism OR Atheist - Youtube

Friday, February 4, 2011

Much of the social science literature on Atheism/Irreligion/Non-religion is written with very little reference to empirical data1, particularly data coming from Atheists or the non-religious themselves. The research I am currently doing will include the voices of Atheists in a number of forms such as documents, twitter feeds, movies (youtube or standard), blogs and interviews with participants (more on this in a later post).

In the social sciences many practitioners use qualitative methods to extract the voices of actors in particular social settings, in order to add them to our understanding of that social group or social structure (well known e.g. Denzin and Lincoln 1998). This data adds another dimension to the research via accessing the participant view of the system. It helps to ensure that the thoughts of those inside the social group are not (even accidently) misrepresented or skewed by an outsider view.

In contemplating all this, another level of participant voice and thus a question occurred to me...

The godless will soon be asked to stand up and be counted in Sydney's Bible Belt, part of a campaign to counter the influence of religion on politics. The Atheist Foundation of Australia has begun a campaign calling on those whose faith has lapsed to mark ''no religion'' on their census forms this year - with West Pennant Hills slated to host a billboard before August 9. The 8.3 metre by 2.2 metre sign on Pennant Hills Road and another in Armidale will make a month-long appearance from June 20. Despite the location, the foundation's president, David Nicholls, said the campaign did not intend to attack religion, but to counter the extent to which Australia was unduly claimed as a Christian country in decision-making and funding.

"Unfortunately, because of the wording, many people will select the religion of their baptism or initiation at youth, despite not being a religious person at all," he said.

Every census since 1911 has included a question on religion, with the 1971 census the first to introduce ''no religion'' as an option. Mr Nicholls said the group had long lobbied the Australian Bureau of Statistics to change what it considered a leading question, to no effect. The head of the ABS Census Program, Paul Lowe, said people who were uncomfortable with the question were free to leave it blank. "Even though the question is optional, approximately 90 per cent of people chose to provide a response in the 2006 census, with 18.7 per cent indicating they had no religion,'' he said. But the atheists have found an unlikely supporter. Ruth Powell, the director of the National Church Life Survey, said religious participation and religious identity were two important social measures - ideally considered separately with a second census question. ''It would be really useful to actually identify those who are committed and active and involved [church] attenders, but not at the cost of the current question,'' Dr Powell said. The 20-year-old church survey, conducted in every census year, found more people attended Pentecostal churches than identified themselves as such in the census. It was the reverse with Anglicans. Malcolm Williams, the director of Outreach Media, a Sydney-based Christian media organisation, did not think Christians would be too bothered by the atheists' campaign. But some were occasionally bothered by the posters his organisation distributed to 100 churches around the country, such as one reading: ''Don't let Christians put you off Jesus.'' ''Some Christians were quite indignant, while lots of people who aren't churchgoers were knocking on church doors saying 'thank you','' Mr Williams said.

Inspiring Quotes

Representation matters, and when various media reports combined to create the “New Atheist” meme without mentioning the contributions of the women involved in the movement, the result was that the meme itself became masculinized. And because contemporary atheism has become so synonymous with this initially identified group, women atheists may well continue to be overlooked by the mainstream (or will, as some female skeptics have, reject inclusion on principle). It’s a state of affairs very much in line with the history of women in other fields in which battling continued institutional neglect—as opposed to intrinsic hostility—is an ongoing theme.

So let’s reframe. For every mention of Hitchens, counter with a mention of Hecht. For every theory that male atheists are purer or more confrontational, let’s ask why we gender the philosophy of nonbelief to begin with. The ranks of atheists who don’t fit the popular profile are increasing, and with more attention paid to who isn’ta white male author with a fancy-pants book contract, the public face of nonbelief may begin to look as diverse as atheism’s adherents actually are. And if the work of women like Hecht, Jacoby, McCreight, and Gaylor indicates anything, it’s that there’s a need for atheist voices from all genders and sexes to—very rationally—make themselves heard.

Behavior rather than belief seems to be the defining factor of the spiritual atheist. Those who call themselves spiritual are engaged in helping others, caring for the environment, enjoying the outdoors, and generally spending time meditating on central themes. We can't fault that.

...what we would like to see, while no evidence for any gods exists or seems to be forthcoming, is that religion is practiced by adults, in their places of worship, without teaching anything other than comparative religion to children in the schools, without tax exemptions, and what we would also like to see is that religious belief is no longer perceived as some kind of necessary prerequisite for being a moral and responsible and loving and caring human being. Because it isn’t.

...here's the thing. When faced with horrors in our past -- our personal history, or our human history -- non-believers don't have any need to defend them. When non-believers look at a human history full of genocide, infanticide, slavery, forced marriage, etc. etc. etc., we're entirely free to say, "Damn. That was terrible. That was some seriously screwed-up shit we did. We were wrong to do that. Let's not ever do that again."

But for people who believe in a holy book, it's not that simple. When faced with horrors in their religion's history -- horrors that their holy book defends, and even praises -- believers have to do one of two things. They have to either a) cherry-pick the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't; or b) come up with contorted rationalizations for why the most blatant, grotesque, black-and-white evil really isn't all that bad.

"Debunking creationism may not be an appropriate topic to submit to Evolution or Paleobiology, but creationism is believed by millions and supported by well-funded institutions that promote it avidly. Therefore, I think, in addition to their responsibilities to their professions, scientists also have a responsibility to enter into the public discussion on these topics. Otherwise, the field is just abandoned to the creationists. The same goes with topics like global warming and the weirdly resurgent phobia about vaccinations. These issues affect the public well-being and those with the expertise need to participate in the discussion. Similarly, participating in discussions on SO is my, very modest, way of playing the role of "public intellectual."